Canada still wants to “discipline the use of the Internet”

Netflix is "putting a great stress on the Internet," said Canada's top telecom …

Unlike the parrot in the famous Monty Python sketch, it appears that metered Internet billing in Canada is not quite dead after all. Speaking at a House of Commons hearing today, the head of Canada's telecoms regulator made it clear that metered billing rules would indeed be delayed—but they could well reappear.

Konrad von Finckenstein, head of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), said that he has heard the "evident concern expressed by Canadians" about metered billing rules. Those rules would allow the dominant DSL provider, Bell Canada, to impose usage-based billing on the small indie ISPs that use parts of its network to offer service.

"We don't have a monopoly on wisdom," he admitted, adding that CRTC had last night decided to suspend the new rules for 60 days and to review its own decision. When pressed about changes that might be coming, von Finckenstein made clear that nothing may change. "I cannot tell you what the outcome of the review is," he repeated.

The government has now pledged publicly to block the rules in their current form, but the CRTC has yet to hear officially from any official on the matter. Though delayed, its rules currently remain in place.

Even if it changes the billing requirements, CRTC still wants to "find economic ways to discipline the use of the Internet," von Finckenstein said in response to a question. Companies like Netflix are "putting a great stress on the Internet and there's no incentive for companies to invest in maintaining the Internet." Usage-based billing would encourage people to adopt more bandwidth-efficient technologies (or to forgo things like Internet video altogether, which would be terrific for cable operators).

And he defended the CRTC, pointing out (justly) that without its line-sharing rules, the indie ISPs wouldn't be around to complain about the new billing rules in the first place.

Even if the new billing rules are revoked completely, only indie ISPs would be affected, and they reach only a few percent of Canadian users. As von Finckenstein noted, most of Canada is a functional duopoly. No matter what happens, Bell and the cable companies will still be free to keep jamming low caps down subscribers' throats.

Even if it changes the billing requirements, CRTC still wants to "find economic ways to discipline the use of the Internet," von Finckenstein said in response to a question. Companies like Netflix are "putting a great stress on the Internet and there's no incentive for companies to invest in maintaining the Internet." Usage-based billing would encourage people to adopt more bandwidth-efficient technologies (or to forgo things like Internet video altogether, which would be terrific for cable operators).

No incentive to invest in maintenance? Besides the fact that they're already getting paid for their investment?

I really don't see this increasing their drive to make their service better, since they can just leave it as-is and soak their customers (direct and indirect) for ever-increasing bandwidth use.

And you can't tell me that bandwidth isn't decreasing in cost; we used to pay 10k USD a switch for gigabit, now you can grab a Cisco 3750g for $3k easily. Sure, it's not the same gear, but if regular network gear is becoming less expensive, so is the hardware cable ops use.

And you can't tell me that bandwidth isn't decreasing in cost; we used to pay 10k USD a switch for gigabit, now you can grab a Cisco 3750g for $3k easily. Sure, it's not the same gear, but if regular network gear is becoming less expensive, so is the hardware cable ops use.

Don't forget inflation. That $3K today isn't worth what $3K was back when those same switches were $10K. So there's even more savings.

So, just how scarce is this bandwidth resource, and just how much does it cost to perform the infrastructure upgrades that the ISPs say they can't afford?

The ISPs seem to believe that bandwidth is (or will soon become) quite scarce indeed, and that the necessary upgrades are prohibitively expensive.

Their opponents seem to believe that bandwidth is not terribly scarce at all, and that adding more bandwidth really doesn't cost that much.

Aren't there numbers and graphs for these things? I know it's a multi-faceted, complicated question, but I'd like to see more concrete figures and quantitative arguments in the public discourse.

If the internet really is in danger of being "clogged" by netflix, and the status quo (i.e., no paid prioritization) prohibits ISPs from upgrading their networks because it costs too much, then something obviously needs to change. But if that whole argument is bogus - if there's plenty of bandwidth available now, and adding more doesn't cost all that much - then their woe-betide-us argument should be exposed as a lie.

Wow.. Konrad von Finckenstein sounds like a giant douche. Still there's a glimmer of hope for Canadians, and I'm here in the US hoping you guys show the ISP's that people won't just sit by and let crap like this happen.

Sooo...instead of taking the obvious solution to Internet stress (upgrade the infrastructure), this fool would rather blame end-users for the problem, force them to avoid new and innovative content delivery models, and let the 'net languish in a perpetual Stone Age.

Considering that traditional cable TV itself is now delivered predominantly by IP anyways, and YouTube and Netflix are ready to set up robust CDNs to optimize things, his argument makes even less sense.

I'm now thoroughly convinced that this jackass is bought and paid for by the telcos.

The ISPs seem to believe that bandwidth is (or will soon become) quite scarce indeed, and that the necessary upgrades are prohibitively expensive.

Their opponents seem to believe that bandwidth is not terribly scarce at all, and that adding more bandwidth really doesn't cost that much.

Telcos in particular have been whining about the coming bandwidth shortage for, umm, over a decade at this point. So far it's yet to materialize, and it's unlikely to do so now.

What the real issue is is quite simple: it does cost money to upgrade networks. Telcos and cablecos don't want to spend this money because it will _lower_ profits. (Not eliminate, lower.) What they want is ways to avoid upgrading their infrastructure, but at the same time squeeze more money from their users, thus driving UP profits even more.

This isn't, and never has been, about bandwidth usage. It's about greed, pure and simple. The telcos/cablecos want even more money for doing even less. That's it plain and simple. All their warnings and dire predictions will only come to pass if they're allowed to have their way. Otherwise they'll be forced to continue to do infrastructure upgrades as cost of doing business, and things will continue to be fine. But if you fail to do those upgrades, of _course_ you'll start running out of bandwidth.

So, just how scarce is this bandwidth resource, and just how much does it cost to perform the infrastructure upgrades that the ISPs say they can't afford?

The ISPs seem to believe that bandwidth is (or will soon become) quite scarce indeed, and that the necessary upgrades are prohibitively expensive.

Their opponents seem to believe that bandwidth is not terribly scarce at all, and that adding more bandwidth really doesn't cost that much.

Aren't there numbers and graphs for these things? I know it's a multi-faceted, complicated question, but I'd like to see more concrete figures and quantitative arguments in the public discourse.

If the internet really is in danger of being "clogged" by netflix, and the status quo (i.e., no paid prioritization) prohibits ISPs from upgrading their networks because it costs too much, then something obviously needs to change. But if that whole argument is bogus - if there's plenty of bandwidth available now, and adding more doesn't cost all that much - then their woe-betide-us argument should be exposed as a lie.

You're asking questions governments (at least in North America) won't or can't ask. Lobbyists ensure the former and lack of competition ensures the latter.

It's worth noting that the 60 day review request came from Bell. They're not doing this because they were told to, or because the public demanded it, but the damn people they should be regulating properly requested it.

The review has 3 things they want to check, that...

Quote:

it protects consumersthose who use the Internet heavily pay for their excess use, andSmall ISPs retain maximum flexibility and continue to be a key source of innovation in the industry.

which von Finckenstein claims the new rules already meets. So apparently they're giving it 60 days for it to die down a bit then implement the same thing again. I've never seen an organisation more in the pocket of corporate interests.

The best laugh came from the FAQ though.

Quote:

Why doesn't the CRTC regulate Internet services?In 1999, the CRTC studied the Internet and decided not to regulate it. Access to Internet services was competitive, and both creativity and innovation grew in an environment without regulation. While there was some broadcasting content being offered, most Internet services at the time were text based. The CRTC concluded that the Internet was meeting the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act.The CRTC periodically reviews its policies to ensure that the objectives continue to be met.

God forbid they give themselves more work by letting Netflix change their job description.

Sooo...instead of taking the obvious solution to Internet stress (upgrade the infrastructure), this fool would rather blame end-users for the problem, force them to avoid new and innovative content delivery models, and let the 'net languish in a perpetual Stone Age.

Considering that traditional cable TV itself is now delivered predominantly by IP anyways, and YouTube and Netflix are ready to set up robust CDNs to optimize things, his argument makes even less sense.

I'm now thoroughly convinced that this jackass is bought and paid for by the telcos.

Because it totally costs money to use bandwidth the way it does to produce electricity!

Doesn't it? Seriously, if bandwidth isn't infinite and free, then isn't charging based on usage the most fair approach?

Umm, what exactly is the resource here? Essentially it's photons. Anyone who's ever had a sunburn knows there's plenty of those to go round. For all purposes it's fair to claim that bandwidth is in fact an infinite resource. The history of the internet has borne that out and will continue to do so.

First, the ISPs must provide, at their cost, a fully certified standalone meter. Just like my water, gas and electricity meters, I can read them on my own. And by certified, I mean a government regulatory body has certified that the counts are accurate (i.e., everyone's byte is measured the same way). So the meter must be calibrated by NIST (for the US) or Industry Canada/Measurement Canada. This is so the ISPs cannot claim to include headers you don't see (e.g., DOCSIS or DSL physical headers). It must be standalone, so I can check my reading without clicking the meter. Built into the modem is fine. And yes, like my other utility meters, it must be sealed by the calibrating agency. In the event of a discrepancy, the meter is considered accurate. And meter to ISP traffic is free.

Second, the ISP must provide full speed. Just like my gas, water and electricity let me use up to the safe limits, the ISP must provide full technical speed. Not 5Mbps/10Mbps tiers, but if the hardware can do 25Mbps, they must provide 25Mbps. Sorry, but I don't buy electricity or water or gas in tiers - my breaker panel is 200A, and if I want to use 200A, I can use it at any time. DItto water and gas - I can use as much as I want.

Third, no quotas. You bill by the byte like my electricity, water and gas. If I use 0 bytes, I pay $0. If you want the cellphone provider model, then it must be a hard cap - if I pay for 60GB, I want my internet to stop at 60GB. If I request overage ability, you can charge me the regular per-byte rate. Which is set by the public regulatory agency.

Finally, the meter should not count traffic I do not control. If someone pingfloods me, I shouldn't have to worry about racking up a big bill. With water, gas, electricity, I'm in direct control of my consumption. With internet, I'm not.

The Cable and TV giants make such huge profits that they have gobbled up all the TV stations lest they have to pay taxes on any of those profits. If they weren't buying up every thing in site they would have truck loads of cash to do upgrades with. Intentionally creating a shortage allows you to increase prices which are already amongst the highest in the world.

Time to rewrite the broadcast act and leave out the chapter titled CRTC.

Doesn't it? Seriously, if bandwidth isn't infinite and free, then isn't charging based on usage the most fair approach?

The big issue here is that indie ISP's are forced to bill on a per customer basis. So if they, for example, decide to average out the bandwidth usage of their customers they aren't allowed to raise the caps.

Essentially, they aren't allowed to function like an independent company. Their plans are forced to mirror Bell's plans.

Doesn't it? Seriously, if bandwidth isn't infinite and free, then isn't charging based on usage the most fair approach?

Yeah, bandwidth IS scarce. That's why you pay more for a faster connection—when you have a faster connection, you're using up more of your ISP's backoffice / backbone bandwidth

And ISPs already charge for bandwidth. People can pay more if they want a faster connection. No one has a problem with that

The problem is that they're also slapping *transfer caps* on top. And that's where the electricity analogy breaks down—with electricity, your utility has to pay money to generate it, whereas with data, your ISP needs only to transfer it across the network it has already built. Your ISP isn't "generating" data like your utility generates electricity

The problem for the ISP is that they vastly oversell their network—there is no way for the ISP to deliver the "up to" bandwidth for all of their customers at the same time. So they complain and slap transfer caps on their customers, as a way for reducing customer demand for bandwidth (if you're constantly worried about overage charges, you won't be using your connection)

This is exactly what all these fucking imbeciles in political positions are doing these days.

a) Implement unpopular policyb) Remove policy pending "review" for a period until complaints die downc) Reimplement it with a slightly different name and minor lip-service changesd) Laugh maniacally as you screw over the general populace

Prove it. In public. Not in some back room with secret information no one is allowed to see let alone challenge, like last time.

It pisses me off to no end that it's ok for a public hearing to be held partially in private because of supposed trade secrets, yet the government has to abandon terrorism prosecutions because all the evidence needs to be made public.

Quote:

and there's no incentive for companies to invest in maintaining the Internet."

It's funny that they place the blame on Netflix, too. Zip ca is coming out with a streaming service soon which is owned by Rogers. If I can only watch maybe a few episodes of TV and maybe a movie per week (for the month) what the hell is my incentive use any video streaming service. I'm with Shaw right now and I spoke with their mid level telephone rep and he told me that the only reason that they are charging is because "everyone else is doing it" I'm glad I don't have shares with them. Not to mention their bandwidth caps went from 60gb to 25gb for mid basic and my current plan used to be 120gb a month and now it's 60gb. Just insane.

And they wonder why Canada is so technologically behind the rest of the developed nations..

Doesn't it? Seriously, if bandwidth isn't infinite and free, then isn't charging based on usage the most fair approach?

Yeah, bandwidth IS scarce. That's why you pay more for a faster connection—when you have a faster connection, you're using up more of your ISP's backoffice / backbone bandwidth

Sure, bandwidth may (arguably) be scarce, but only so long as network infrastructure remains constant and is never upgraded. Is that what we pay for? Personally I expect at least some portion of my monthly fees to be diverted to an ongoing programme of network improvements and upgrades. If that's the case then bandwidth itself is not nearly so scarce as these major ISPs would have us believe.

That said, your distinction between bandwidth and data caps does elucidate matters.

You know, I have no problem with UBB. As long as what they charge me per gigabyte is REASONABLE for the CONSUMPTION. $2/gig is extortionate. A fairer price would be somewhere around $0.25/gig. Should Bell decide to do that, and lift its ridiculous "insurance", while providing the full speed for which it advertises (While I understand that there are a number of factors involved in reaching the full speed of a connection, some of the excuses I've heard, such as "The electromagnetic radiation from your fridge is interfering with the modem, makes me think that Bell has hired Miss Teen USA South Carolina to answer their phones), then I think most Canadians would be satisfied.

At the heart of the matter, however, is not UBB. I understand, on Ars, it is a non-sequitur to bring up much else, but as a Canadian, it's quite frustrating to see the CRTC consistently give Bell carte blanche to do as it pleases when Bell has been convicted of breaking the Do Not Call List regulations, has the worst customer service in Canada (Routinely given an F by the BBB), and is generally the poster child for an inept organization that EVERY Canadian has dealt with at least ONCE. We as Canadians *hate* Bell. Genuinely. To see them gain such traction in the marketplace when they have a history of acting against the best interest of customers and the industry at large doesn't make us want LESS regulation, it makes us want MORE. Bell screws over customers and non-customers alike at every turn, and hides behind the regulatory power of the CRTC in order to avoid further scrutiny. THIS is why we're aggravated. We don't give a crap about a competitive marketplace or a fair system when Bell has rarely acted in the best interests of the free market or competition in and of itself. As a result, to see the CRTC acquiesce to Bell's demands in quite such a spineless manner aggravates a lot of Canadians as a miscarriage of the ideas of fairness before the law to which we as citizens are subject, but Bell seems to breach with impunity.

Thank you for your patience, I apologize if my rant has taken up too much of your time. I hope this sheds some light as to why so many Canadians are so vehemently opposed to such Luddite regulations when dealing with technology.

You know, I have no problem with UBB. As long as what they charge me per gigabyte is REASONABLE for the CONSUMPTION. $2/gig is extortionate. A fairer price would be somewhere around $0.25/gig. Should Bell decide to do that, and lift its ridiculous "insurance", while providing the full speed for which it advertises (While I understand that there are a number of factors involved in reaching the full speed of a connection, some of the excuses I've heard, such as "The electromagnetic radiation from your fridge is interfering with the modem, makes me think that Bell has hired Miss Teen USA South Carolina to answer their phones), then I think most Canadians would be satisfied.

At the heart of the matter, however, is not UBB. I understand, on Ars, it is a non-sequitur to bring up much else, but as a Canadian, it's quite frustrating to see the CRTC consistently give Bell carte blanche to do as it pleases when Bell has been convicted of breaking the Do Not Call List regulations, has the worst customer service in Canada (Routinely given an F by the BBB), and is generally the poster child for an inept organization that EVERY Canadian has dealt with at least ONCE. We as Canadians *hate* Bell. Genuinely. To see them gain such traction in the marketplace when they have a history of acting against the best interest of customers and the industry at large doesn't make us want LESS regulation, it makes us want MORE. Bell screws over customers and non-customers alike at every turn, and hides behind the regulatory power of the CRTC in order to avoid further scrutiny. THIS is why we're aggravated. We don't give a crap about a competitive marketplace or a fair system when Bell has rarely acted in the best interests of the free market or competition in and of itself. As a result, to see the CRTC acquiesce to Bell's demands in quite such a spineless manner aggravates a lot of Canadians as a miscarriage of the ideas of fairness before the law to which we as citizens are subject, but Bell seems to breach with impunity.

Thank you for your patience, I apologize if my rant has taken up too much of your time. I hope this sheds some light as to why so many Canadians are so vehemently opposed to such Luddite regulations when dealing with technology.

As an American i've had to deal with their BS.

When I was in Toronto they put 3 $20 holds on my card for using a pay phone.

von Finckenstein is an idiot who obviously doesn't have a shred of knowledge about how the internet works.

I have no doubt in our government (and by extension, the CRTC's) ability to kill an entire industry with their decisions. They've already done it before through gross stupidity, and I have no doubt they'll do it again...